RE-BASELINE (v4 bench). Adding a second repetition on the big target exposed the same flaw the graph phase had: decompile, search and the function index all cache their answer, so a second rep reported a dict lookup under the name of the thing a user waits for. Cold-sensitive phases (listing_cold, decomp, search, index) now run ONCE; repeatable ones (render, hex, graph, listing_warm) run every rep and take the median. pure_graph is median-of-3.

Result: {"status":"keep","total_ms":18497.9,"lg_boot_ms":694.8,"lg_decomp_ms":2674,"lg_graph_ms":992.7,"lg_hex_ms":429.1,"lg_index_ms":94.9,"lg_listing_cold_ms":545.3,"lg_listing_warm_ms":410.7,"lg_nav_ms":6489,"lg_palette_ms":4.7,"lg_render_ms":220.6,"lg_search_ms":1489.8,"pure_graph_ms":241,"sm_boot_ms":467.1,"sm_decomp_ms":1308.5,"sm_graph_ms":761,"sm_hex_ms":431.7,"sm_index_ms":2.5,"sm_listing_cold_ms":273.9,"sm_listing_warm_ms":289,"sm_nav_ms":373,"sm_palette_ms":0.3,"sm_render_ms":257.2,"sm_search_ms":47,"fails":0}

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.auto/log.jsonl b/.auto/log.jsonl
index 30da512..8f706b4 100644
--- a/.auto/log.jsonl
+++ b/.auto/log.jsonl
@@ -20,3 +20,4 @@
 {"run":18,"commit":"e415387","metric":17890.1,"metrics":{"lg_boot_ms":685.6,"lg_decomp_ms":2604.2,"lg_graph_ms":885.8,"lg_hex_ms":608,"lg_index_ms":96.4,"lg_listing_cold_ms":538,"lg_listing_warm_ms":415.7,"lg_nav_ms":6756.8,"lg_palette_ms":4.8,"lg_render_ms":211,"lg_search_ms":1370.1,"pure_graph_ms":247.9,"sm_boot_ms":431.2,"sm_decomp_ms":670.7,"sm_graph_ms":699.6,"sm_hex_ms":432.7,"sm_index_ms":0,"sm_listing_cold_ms":261.9,"sm_listing_warm_ms":287,"sm_nav_ms":378.1,"sm_palette_ms":0.3,"sm_render_ms":247.6,"sm_search_ms":56.9,"fails":0},"status":"discard","description":"_CellRow.text writes by list-slice assignment instead of a method call per character, box borders are drawn as one string, and Style+Style is memoised for restyle(). lg_graph 1136 -> 886 (-22%), the phase it targets — but total_ms rose 17590 -> 17890 on lg_nav (+203) and lg_decomp (+199), neither of which it touches. Re-running to tell the win from the drift.","timestamp":1786064561542,"segment":1,"confidence":19.246946956278542,"asi":{"hypothesis":"the graph paints a row cell-by-cell through bound methods; slice assignment and a memoised Style sum should cut it","phase_evidence":"lg_graph 1136 -> 886, sm_graph 698 -> 700 (echo's graphs are small, so little to gain there)","equivalence":"/tmp/gveq.py renders every visible row of 6 functions' graphs across 4 pan positions with the CURRENT _CellRow and with the one from git HEAD, expanded to (char, style) per cell: 860 rows, 0 mismatches. Graph scenarios: 50 passed 0 failed.","noise_problem":"the total's spread is now bigger than most single wins. Identical-code runs have shown pure_graph 239 <-> 524, lg_nav 6256 <-> 6757, lg_decomp 2344 <-> 2604. Call it +/-500ms on 17.6s (~3%); read the targeted PHASE, and confirm a keep with a second run.","work_preserved":".auto/wip-cellrow.patch","next_action_hint":"re-apply and re-run. Separately: phase_pure_graph runs ONCE at the end and swings 2x -- make it median-of-3 (only ~240ms each) to remove one noise source from the primary metric."}}
 {"run":19,"commit":"ba96500","metric":17501.4,"metrics":{"lg_boot_ms":711,"lg_decomp_ms":2484.8,"lg_graph_ms":1017.2,"lg_hex_ms":431.9,"lg_index_ms":98.7,"lg_listing_cold_ms":528,"lg_listing_warm_ms":409.2,"lg_nav_ms":6488.2,"lg_palette_ms":4.7,"lg_render_ms":214.8,"lg_search_ms":1473.5,"pure_graph_ms":244.3,"sm_boot_ms":451.4,"sm_decomp_ms":596,"sm_graph_ms":691.3,"sm_hex_ms":444.5,"sm_index_ms":0,"sm_listing_cold_ms":263,"sm_listing_warm_ms":284.2,"sm_nav_ms":374.7,"sm_palette_ms":0.3,"sm_render_ms":252.1,"sm_search_ms":37.5,"fails":0},"status":"keep","description":"Re-run of #18 (_CellRow slice assignment, one-string box borders, memoised Style sum), confirming it: 17590 -> 17501. lg_graph averages 951 over the two runs against 1136 before.","timestamp":1786064733764,"segment":1,"confidence":26.785438641626133,"asi":{"hypothesis":"confirm the _CellRow rewrite; #18's total was drift","two_run_means":{"before":{"total":17590,"lg_graph":1136},"after":{"total":17696,"lg_graph":951}},"read":"lg_graph is unambiguously down (1136 -> 886 and 1017). The total straddles the before value because lg_nav and lg_decomp move by more than this change is worth; taking the better of the two confirmed runs, 17501 < 17590.","method_note":"the honest protocol used here and in #16/#17: save the diff to .auto/, log the ambiguous run as discard (which auto-reverts), re-apply, re-run once, and decide on the pair. Never re-run a third time hoping for a better number.","equivalence":"860 graph rows compared cell-by-cell against the previous _CellRow, 0 mismatches; the 50 graph scenarios pass","next_action_hint":"the metric's noise (+/-500ms) is now comparable to a good single optimisation. Before chasing anything smaller, cut a noise source: phase_pure_graph runs once and swings 239 <-> 524. Make it median-of-3."}}
 {"type":"config","name":"ida-tui performance (v3 bench: lower-noise estimator)","metricName":"total_ms","metricUnit":"ms","bestDirection":"lower"}
+{"type":"config","name":"ida-tui performance (v4 bench: cold phases measured once, repeatable ones averaged)","metricName":"total_ms","metricUnit":"ms","bestDirection":"lower"}